A metanarrative is a narrative that accounts for everything from beginning to end. Having each person come up with their version of everything is at odds with the very idea of metanarratives. The big questions and ideas that are foundational to life seeing there is only one reality, and it is fixed, what happened in reality, actually happened. Simply seeing a multitude of answers to the same question, is just highlighting they are nothing more than a person's opinion, and can be nothing more. We each have an opinion about reality, but reality doesn't change due to our opinions of it.
The metaphysical metanarrative God created everything if false means that not everything was created by God. Simple enough but it highlights there are only two main narratives here, there could be versions of each, but it is binary.
I've heard/seen evolution compared to creation, they are not in the same type of category, one is an event, the other a process. Yet, some have blown up evolution to the point they make that comparison nonetheless. As evolution has become such a belief it has taken on a status as creation. Phillip Johnson has a good quote I think applies to this.
"The danger here is that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute."
@kellyjaysaid A metanarrative is a narrative that accounts for everything from beginning to end. Having each person come up with their version of everything is at odds with the very idea of metanarratives. The big questions and ideas that are foundational to life seeing there is only one reality, and it is fixed, what happened in reality, actually happened. Simply seeing a multitude of ...[text shortened]... cal premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute."
I lack belief in the metanarrative that you have settled for.
@kellyjaysaid As evolution has become such a belief it has taken on a status as creation. Phillip Johnson has a good quote I think applies to this.
"The danger here is that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute."
Cosmological evolution is based on evidence. Nothing "metaphysical" about it.
Sometimes our current notion of the universe has been challenged, like with the James Webb telescope finding galaxies that we thought shouldn't exist, or emerging evidence that the universe could be older than we thought. But those challenges are entirely based on evidence. Not metaphysics like creationism.
Scientists don't consider anything "absolute" and are always open to their beliefs being challenged. Evidence is what matters.
@vivifysaid Cosmological evolution is based on evidence. Nothing "metaphysical" about it.
Sometimes our current notion of the universe has been challenged, like with the James Webb telescope finding galaxies that we thought shouldn't exist, or emerging evidence that the universe could be older than we thought. But those challenges are entirely based on evidence. Not metaphysics li ...[text shortened]... nything "absolute" and are always open to their beliefs being challenged. Evidence is what matters.
If you do not believe in absolutes you are not trying to discover anything real about the universe, it would all be relative and subjective. What would be the point?
“I’m not crazy about reality, but it’s still the only place to get a decent meal.” Groucho Marx
@kellyjaysaid If you do not believe in absolutes you are not trying to discover anything real about the universe, it would all be relative and subjective. What would be the point?
Once you believe in absolutes you close your mind to possibilities that challenge those "absolutes". That's the opposite of science.
Science does try to discover ultimate truths about the universe but scientists resist such labels because you can never be sure if that's been reached. New discoveries are made all the time and scientists need to keep open minds about them.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
@vivifysaid Once you believe in absolutes you close your mind to possibilities that challenge those "absolutes". That's the opposite of science.
Science does try to discover ultimate truths but scientists resist such labels because you can never be sure. New discoveries are made all time and scientists need to keep open minds about them.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize be ...[text shortened]... to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Even Sherlock had to theorize first, on some cases, to get an idea of where to look for more data.
He had the human failing of trying to sound a bit too sure of himself at times. He compensated for it by beating himself up when he missed something. But at least he usually admitted his mistakes, at least to his friend Watson.
@vivifysaid Once you believe in absolutes you close your mind to possibilities that challenge those "absolutes". That's the opposite of science.
Science does try to discover ultimate truths about the universe but scientists resist such labels because you can never be sure if that's been reached. New discoveries are made all the time and scientists need to keep open minds about them. ...[text shortened]... to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.[/i]"
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
That is bogus without absolutes there is no reason for anything so all discovery should be mute. No one could be wrong or right, correct answers would be a thing of the past, discovery would be nothing more than a new idea. When you go up against an absolute you can only do one of two things confirm it correct or show it should never have been called an absolute, which would be world shattering.
@bigdoggsaid Even Sherlock had to theorize first, on some cases, to get an idea of where to look for more data.
He had the human failing of trying to sound a bit too sure of himself at times. He compensated for it by beating himself up when he missed something. But at least he usually admitted his mistakes, at least to his friend Watson.
Missing something, it would be something true that gives insight into solving the case. Only from a foundation of known good do the issues reveal themselves, if you can’t trust anything nothing is sure.
@kellyjaysaid That is bogus without absolutes there is no reason for anything so all discovery should be mute. No one could be wrong or right, correct answers would be a thing of the past, discovery would be nothing more than a new idea. When you go up against an absolute you can only do one of two things confirm it correct or show it should never have been called an absolute, which would be world shattering.
Studying and understanding the world around us is 'reason' enough, without attributing everything to some invented divine all - powerful entity. Your world may be 'shattered' by the realization or acceptance that your god is a myth, but most of us will be just fine.
@kellyjaysaid That is bogus without absolutes there is no reason for anything so all discovery should be mute. No one could be wrong or right, correct answers would be a thing of the past, discovery would be nothing more than a new idea. When you go up against an absolute you can only do one of two things confirm it correct or show it should never have been called an absolute, which would be world shattering.
Like I said: what matters in science is evidence.
Do we know with "absolute" certainty the origin of the universe? No. Do we have have reasonable conclusions based on decades of detailed, painstaking research? yes.
The fact that scientists are not arrogant enough to declare their findings the "absolute" truth is a strength, not a weakness. Being humble enough to admit that you could be wrong is what keeps science able to thrive.
Newtonian physics was a highly revered masterwork of a theory that still has applications today, but is not valid in all circumstances. That's because even a juggernaut like Newtonian physics continues to be researched and challenged; as a result new and better explanations for the universe were discovered. If scientists chose to declare Newton's theories as "absolute" science would've stagnated.
Scientists continue to search for absolute truth while being sure to remain humble enough to never assume they've found it.
@indonesia-philsaid Studying and understanding the world around us is 'reason' enough, without attributing everything to some invented divine all - powerful entity. Your world may be 'shattered' by the realization or acceptance that your god is a myth, but most of us will be just fine.
That is not science that is simply going along with the Atheism.
@kellyjaysaid without absolutes there is no reason for anything
Think of it this way: is it your job as Christians to strive to be as much like Christ as possible? I think most Christians would agree it is.
Does this mean you should ever assume you've absolutely become as perfect as Christ? Obviously not. You should continually strive to become more Christlike, correct?
So too with science and never assuming absolute truth has been reached.
@vivifysaid Think of it this way: is it your job as Christians to strive to be as much like Christ as possible? I think most Christians would agree it is.
Does this mean you should ever assume you've absolutely become as perfect as Christ? Obviously not. You should continually strive to become more Christlike, correct?
So too with science and never assuming absolute truth has been reached.
Science is looking for truth, if it isn't then what is it doing, looking for a philosophy that we can all live by, I think not. Absolute truth is simply truth, for example, when you walk into a room, do you do it by walking through a door avoiding the walls, or do you slip through a solid wall? The walls are real, and when we sit down typically it is a chair or bench or something we can use, we don't lift our feet off the ground and float.
If you want to talk about being more like Christ start a thread.
Metaphysical Absolute
21 Jan '24 12:062 edits
Back to Top